Speed Detectors Government ban

[2old4this]

The Daily Telegraph reported on 17/01/05

More than half a million drivers will have to throw away speed camera warning devices or face a fine if a Government ban goes ahead.

Demand for in-car detectors had soared in the past two years as the number of speed cameras has risen to more than 5,000. The annual number of automatic £60 fines doubled to three million over the same period.


Detectors provide early warning of speed cameras and traps
The Road Safety Bill, which is going through the Commons, includes a provision to outlaw radar and laser-based camera alerts, although equipment using global positioning technology will still be allowed.

Motoring organisations say the Government should compensate owners of the radar or laser detectors, which usually cost between £100 and £200. The satellite-linked systems often cost twice as much.

Users claim that the radar and laser equipment is more effective in detecting mobile speed cameras and identifying whether fixed "Gatso" sites are operational or not. Some manufacturers are threatening legal action if the ban goes ahead. But the Department for Transport says the devices sometimes interfere with camera equipment and are used by "extreme speeders" to evade traps set up by police at locations known for racing. Satellite systems are not used in such ways and are therefore acceptable, an official said.

The RAC said it was a mistake to assume that buyers of detectors were "irresponsible speed addicts".

Edmund King, the executive director, said: "These alerts have clear road safety benefits. They provide drivers with a legitimate reminder that they should slow down, and prevent the need to keep taking their eyes off the road to check the speedometer.

"An awful lot of high-mileage drivers have bought these things in the past few months, or been given them as Christmas presents, because they do not want to risk losing their licence, and possibly their livelihood, over minor speeding infringements. If a ban is implemented, it will raise the question of compensation."

In a poll commissioned by the Drivers Technology Association, 60 per cent of those who used camera detectors said they thought they had become safer drivers as a result.

Three quarters said they had become more aware of speed limits.

Cyclops, one of the larger makers of global positioning alerts, said a ban would cause tens of thousands of drivers to switch systems.

"We predict that sales of GPS driver aides will soar during the second half of the year," said a spokesman.

"The certainty that this type of equipment is legal will also unlock considerable new demand, as people accept that speed cameras are here to stay."

[Paul M]

Yet another totally brain dead idea - which proves once and for all that speed cameras are there just to make money. All this crap about "safety" is a joke - if that was really the reason for cameras, then why are they now banning something which makes people slow down.

Stupid ... Stupid .... Stupid.

(and no, I don't own one)

[Ramrod]

Bloody nanny state!

cruise control has been around for years. Its about time rather than have cameras where there is a danger zone that the radar sent a signal to the car to reduce its revs

[BBKing]

Hum - my Dad's got one, it worked rather well on the short run from here to our new place. What's interesting is that it shows rather well when cameras aren't switched on, which is possibly why the ban is mooted - they enable people to see quite how many 'cameras' are actually dummies or not in use.

I'm not sure whether a ban would be legal, either, since these are entirely passive devices that could quite easily have a legitimate use. Any pointers to the exact wording?

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Hum - my Dad's got one, it worked rather well on the short run from here to our new place. What's interesting is that it shows rather well when cameras aren't switched on, which is possibly why the ban is mooted - they enable people to see quite how many 'cameras' are actually dummies or not in use.

I'm not sure whether a ban would be legal, either, since these are entirely passive devices that could quite easily have a legitimate use. Any pointers to the exact wording?

I agree that technically it's a difficult thing, I wasn't aware that frequencies used by these devices were in the licenced spectrum! I guess there will have to be licence changes to cover this fact, to prosecute at present they need to prove that you actually received the information and acted upon it.
Currently it's not illegal to recieve the camera signal, but only acting on it is breaking the law.

I wonder how an officer would know that the little plastic maplin box I had sat on my dashboard, was in fact containing my own reasonably good attempt at making a camera detector. I even had the cheek to put 6 flashing high intensity LED's pointing towards the screen of the car, so they could tell I was detecting their trap, as well as 2 on the inside with a piezo buzzer to alert me.

I still think it would be difficult to prove if I made myself a home made laser jammer, when I can find some suitable priced (cheap) photo transistors of the right wavelength.

[AndrewJ]

Sorry all but I agree to this idea, I mean if your not being illegal speeding risking killing someone then why moan? yes it is to make money AND?? if you break the law you pay for it.

Simple thing is if your speeding and being ignorant of other people then you should pay, I bet if someone speeding killed your child or lover, then you would be all for camera's and this proposal of banning detectors.

Dont speed it kills, and that from a 21yr old driver.

[BBKing]

Actually, I don't mind cameras, they effectively economise in policemen, which saves us money and saves the coppers to do something else. What's important is that the basis that they're installed on is honest - we should know where they are, how accurate they are, how much they've cut the average speed, etc.

Not allowing us to know where they are in advance strikes me as being fundamentally dishonest. Just not cricket.

[deadite66]

they don't catch people who are driving dangerously, drunk or on drugs, they shouldn't be used to replace proper policing

[Raistlin]

Perhaps that would be some good information to put on the speeding ticket when it comes through the post:

Originally Posted by Speeding Ticket

So far this camera has:
- Cut accidents on this stretch of road from X in 2004 to Y in 2005
- Produced £xxxxxx in revenue

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by AndrewJames

Sorry all but I agree to this idea, I mean if your not being illegal speeding risking killing someone then why moan? yes it is to make money AND?? if you break the law you pay for it.

Simple thing is if your speeding and being ignorant of other people then you should pay, I bet if someone speeding killed your child or lover, then you would be all for camera's and this proposal of banning detectors.

Dont speed it kills, and that from a 21yr old driver.

Sorry? Who said that these were used only by ignorant speeders?
I have one because it gives me advanced warning of black spots, at least it should as that's where speed traps should be.
Remember, you can have a speed related accident and still be well below the stated speed limit.
Take most country lanes for instance, speed limit for a car is 60mph (yes, the white disk with a black diaginal line means national speed limit, which for a car on a single carrigeway is 60mph and 70mph on a dual carrigeway, just thought I'd remind everyone of that as most drivers don't seem to have a clue what it is!)

No matter how many gadgets you have, nothing can detect VASDAR.

I fully expect the AA to fight this, after all, they were created to protect drivers against corrupt and illegal police speed traps in the first place!

Older radar detectors actually transmit too, mine picks them up, but being a new one and not bottom of the range, it doesn't transmit itself.